I heard Sean Hannity on this subject this weekend, who's radio talk show is on an ABC station in NYC. He said this is simply NOT true, but is the "spin" from another network that is trying to justify their own bad policies.

I heard Sean Hannity on this subject this weekend, who's radio talk show is on an ABC station in NYC. He said this is simply NOT true, but is the "spin" from another network that is trying to justify their own bad policies.

Hello?

It's a quotation from an ABC executive published in today's Washington Post.

If we want to see ABC's attitude change, begin to contact the sponsors of shows on the ABC network. Inform them that you will no longer be buying thier products if they continue to advertise on ABC shows and tell them why you are taking this action. Money talks and it won't take long for ABC to get the message. Huting them in their bottom line is what is needed now.

My parents called last night before 9 so they would not miss "The Practice". Not knowing anything about the show, I asked what channel it was on. They told me ABC and I made the snide remark that somewhere on the show there would be something about homosexuality. About 10:45 I flipped to it and watched the last little bit. Story about a young Congressman that might have killed his wife's lover(couldn't make it too close now could we?) until the end when the audience finds out the dead man is actually the Congressman's lover. I almost fell out of my chair.

ABC forbids American Flag?? I don't care!! I'm flying my flag and I could careless whether ABC salutes the flag or not. I could careless if Peter Jennings feelings are hurt. I only care about Americans who love America and aren't ashamed of who we are. For the rest of the lot, I've no time for them! Moving on!

If this is true, the Maggot $aggots at Di$ney are asking for bankrupcty!

Of course this has zero impact on our family. We have not watched Jennings or any ABC news for close to a decade! I watched clymer Maher for two programs during his vile defense of the Moniker Licker, X42. That was enough for me!

I email ABC daily begging them to keep Maher and Jennings on and to expand their time on tv. I tell the Maggots/$aggots at ABC that everytime these two world class left wing extremist clymers open their mouthes that two things happen. They drive away more viewers and then more advertisers! I hope they keep both on and often to destroy this left wing extremist hate America organization!

[This is something I just read on the web, and it's related to this thread. The author is Eric Alterman -- and I'm not posting the full article, in case this is one of those media outlets that forbids reprinting]:

Rush Limbaugh would have us believe that the pinkos have taken over our culture and are oppressing conservatives by mocking and excluding their views from the hegemonic liberal media. But even intelligent conservatives do not genuinely believe this. (Paging my main man again, Billy Kristol.) Indeed, if you think Jack Welch and Andy Lack over at NBC, Michael Eisner and David Westin at ABC, and Sumner Redstone and Andrew Heyward at CBS are secretly conniving to spread the gospel of world revolution, I'm afraid there is not much that can be done for you this side of electroshock.

Let us take the case that has been in the news lately, AOL Time Warner's CNN, which has recently been courting Limbaugh himself, and, according to rumor, the no-less-nutty Bill O'Reilly. The rap on CNN is that it leans too far leftward to attract the right-wing cable news audience that is rapidly falling into the lap of "fair and balanced" Fox News. Tom DeLay regularly refers to CNN as the "Communist News Network" and has suggested a Republican boycott of its programs. The network's new head, Walter Isaacson, recently made a high-profile diplomatic démarche to DeLay's minions, outraging Democrats and inspiring fears of future on-air suck-ups.

Perhaps CNN does see its financial salvation in becoming a kind of faux Fox. In the meantime, if CNN were really run by liberals--to say nothing of actual commies--we might hear a great deal more about Tom DeLay, for instance. How about a CNN special dealing with DeLay's pre-Congressional career as an exterminator, where he fought off three separate tax liens for failing to properly pay payroll and income taxes, and twice paid former business associates court-ordered settlements? Part two of the special might focus on DeLay family values. Where are the family values, a liberal CNN might ask, of a conservative leader who refuses to speak to his own 77-year-old mother and does not even invite her to the wedding of her granddaughter? A network that can milk Gary Condit's affairs for a billion consecutive hours should be able to find a few for a story this good.

More to the point, if CNN were actually a liberal station, it would employ genuine liberals to host its shows. (I hear that Jesse Jackson has a show, though nobody I have asked has ever seen it.) All right, Bill Press is a decent match for Tucker Carlson on Crossfire, albeit from a deep-inside-the-Beltway perspective. Al Hunt and Mark Shields also qualify as liberals by the conservative hegemonic standards of punditocracy discourse. But historically, no CNN "liberal" has proved an ideological match for the fire-breathing zealotry of the pro-fascist Pat Buchanan, the pro-McCarthy Robert Novak or even the charming apparatchik Mary Matalin. And what of the rest of the schedule--Is Larry King a liberal? Wolf Blitzer? Jeff Greenfield? Greta van Susteren? Howard Kurtz and Bernard Kalb? The only way to apply this honorable label to the likes of these nonideological, nonthreatening interviewers is to define the word "liberal" to mean "not obviously insane."

CNN counts as "liberal" only in a universe where conservative political hegemony is so strong that critics have lost the ability to think clearly about anything. CNN does not cover trade from the perspective of the antiglobalization movement.

It does not cover business from the perspective of the labor or environmental movements. It does not cover war from the perspective of the peace movement and it does not cover dictatorships (and illegal military occupations) from the perspective of their victims. It does not even cover George Bush from the perspective of the people who had their election subverted. Indeed, a recent study of the guests on Wolf Blitzer's Inside Washington recently found that the guests were more often Republican than Democrat, more often conservative than liberal. True, not all those who count as "conservative" are willing to go on record about Tom Daschle's supernatural satanic powers, but that's why we have Rush, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, the Weekly Standard, the Washington Times, the New York Post, Matt Drudge, etc., etc.

Simply an issue of advertising. By not wearing a US flag, it clearly points out to foreign agents that ABC folks are available to distort the news even more, if the price is right. If you are a Chinese agent, a North Korean agent, or just representing a new group bent on evil, and you've come to the US with a truck load of cash and want to bribe some media folks to go your way, what do you do? How do you differentiate among the presstitues? Sure, if you are a flaming leftist, ultra-left wing, commie, pinko, you go traditional, Don Rather, Charles Gordon, Maher, the usuals. But if your evil masters want a fresh approach, how do you select? With all those flag lapel pins, how does a thug pick the one for the bribe? Well, the sound business response to to differentiate yourself from your compeitors by being different, you DON'T wear a flag pin in your lapel.

NBC's Tim Russert was passionate this morning on the Don Imus program in defending the right of reporters to wear such symbols and declaring that his patriotism trumped all that crap about the sacredness of journalists' independence.

I've got to disagree... ABC owns the shows, and can require or forbid whatever attire they want to have telecast. Russert has no "right" to violate their rules and keep his job. That being said, just because ABC has the right to make bone-headed decisions doesn't mean that I will ever view their shows again. (I'll only miss Monday Night Football and George Will on Sunday mornings)

"Especially in a time of national crisis, the most patriotic thing journalists can do is to remain as objective as possible," says spokesman Jeffrey Schneider. "That does not mean journalists are not patriots. All of us are at a time like this. But we cannot signal how we feel about a cause, even a justified and just cause, through some sort of outward symbol."

A cause???? Since when is the American Flag "a cause"?

When I started as a radio reporter in the 80's, I had moved from another state and needed to know things such as changing my driver's license, registering to vote, etc., etc. Everyone was real helpful with supplying me with information. Both the news director and the General Manager suggested that when I registered to vote, which they completely encouraged, that I register as a "decline." It is a designation no longer in existence as far as I know, but it meant you chose not to align with any particular party. At the time it made sense to me, as I was going to be doing all of the political coverage throughout the state

I truly appreciated the encouragement I got when I later learned that several of the other local media outlets DIScouraged their reporters from registering to vote at all.

This entire "arguement" over news people wearing a symbol of their country is anethma to me. And I think I have ranted enough so I will cease my rant.

Just goes to show that the standard, multi-national corporate view of loyalty doesn't involve or include nation-states, only the corporation itself. The multi-national corporation can't afford to tick off its non-American customers, regardless of where the corporate HQ might be located.

I think the American Broadcasting Company must change their name, since their very name signifies a bias?????? This is wackie stuff here. I like when liberals clearly show how moronic their ideas really are.

"Is Larry King a liberal? Wolf Blitzer? Jeff Greenfield? Greta van Susteren? Howard Kurtz and Bernard Kalb? The only way to apply this honorable label to the likes of these nonideological, nonthreatening interviewers is to define the word "liberal" to mean "not obviously insane."

To each of these, I would say yes, they are liberal. Greenfield being, personally, an interesting exception (he seems more even-handed than the others). But note his background: From 1968-1970, he served as chief speechwriter for New York Mayor John V. Lindsay, and from 1967-68, he was a senate aide and speechwriter for Sen. Robert F. Kennedy.

Anyone working for RFK and Lindsay was certainly not "middle-of-the-road". When you add Russert, Stephanopoulous, Schieffer, to name a few, how do the liberals get away with so many political operatives in positions in the media? (RHETORICAL QUESTION).

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.